Hi Sam, On 2019-05-13 12:33, Sam Hartman wrote: > The New Maintainer's Guide [1] already is based around debhelper and dh > and effectively recommends it strongly. So it wouldn't mean that. > > [1]: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/
Several years ago I nearly re-translated maint-guide into Simplified Chinese due to it's severely outdated .po strings. That means, all I know about Debian packaging is based on Joey's debhelper. This will be the same to newcomers who start with a debhelper based document. > using dh. That is, is not using dh a bug. > [omitted] > And at some level I think we're asking whether it is appropriate to NMU > a package to convert it to dh. > [omitted] > Today at least I don't think we're talking about making not using dh an > RC bug. It would not make a lot of sense to me to start there. > [omitted] > so, what do you think? Keep the old stuff as is if they don't break and don't introduce maintainance issue. Anything related to diversity, including packaging helper diversity, should be carefully considered in this community. We still remember how people react on the systemd v.s. sysv discussion. So I respect the minority-tools such as cdbs, or any alike, because there are still people who like them and I respect these people. That said, I suggest that we recommend team-maintained packages to be debhelper(dh)-based. That's because not many people can understand minority helpers such as cdbs. For example, when I see a broken team-maintained packaging that is written in cdbs, I'll simply give up trying to understand anything. In brief: * if maintained by person: no restriction, given that the maintainer is not MIA * if team-maintained: recommend dh
